...I think his three major hurdles were 1) only nominally a member of the party he wanted to represent, 2) a lot of his policies weren't fleshed out enough, including critical details on how they'd be paid for, and 3) there was a widespread feeling that he was less likely to win than Clinton, which may have been circular thinking but was there nonetheless. In Trump's case, though, I think it's even simpler.

Click to expand...

The above statements apply 100% to Trump, as well.
I know we disagree on some of the finer details, but, the way I see it, the GOP screwed the pooch over a long drawn-out process that led to Trump leading the primary for them. The DNC responded by screwing up as well, not so much as that the nominated HRC, but that they did so with as little dignity as possible, and the result ended up being what we have now. George Washington, the first leader of our nation, who set so many precedents and left wise words as to why he did what he did, warned that this is what would happen if we got too partisan.
Regarding how Trump won the primary, I guess there are different interpretations as to what happened and especially why, but Ted Cruz was a politician whose career was founded on anti-establishment. I don't think anyone is going to argue against that. The thing is, he got painted as the establishment. Personally, I don't care for him any more than Trump. The appeal for Trump during the primary was all about dropping a big "fuck you" on DC. All the pro-Trump folks with whom I interacted over the time period made that abundantly clear. They wanted someone who didn't work for the "power that be" or "the man" or whatever conceptualization they had of some illuminati secret leader. Once he hit the milestone of becoming the nominee, it was all about not letting Hillary win. The religious right liked Cruz better, but the blue collar folks didn't like him. But, honestly, when does the religious right ever get their guy nominated? Pat Buchanan? Nope. It ultimately comes down to the blue collar guys who generally hate all of the choices, but pick the one whom they hate least.
IMO, taking the power out of the hands of the people who answer to the lobbyists and placing it in the hands of the guy who hired the lobbyists is like throwing all of the chickens to the wolves so that they won't try to dig under the fence around the coop anymore.
But whatever, I can try to analyze this all day long and it accomplishes nothing.

I guess we'll see what Trump does or does not do when he does it or lets it go. Ultimately, I don't see him as one to back down just because people want him to. There'd have to be some undeniable objective reason to change his mind - a reason that affects him in a way of which he's completely aware.

Ted Cruz was a Harvard-educated lawyer who looked like Eddie Munster and was too smooth by half. He may have been elected in the Tea Party wave, but he was the most "establishment" anti-establishment candidate I've ever seen. Trump was a billionare real estate manager from some prestigious school or other so you'd think you could make the same accusation, except I think the "too smooth by half" part of it is the critical part - Cruz seemed like the sort of slimy, sleazeball lawyer who'd say whatever it took to get his way. Trump managed to turn his lack of filter to his advantage - if you remember some of the polling back in the election about Hillary's perceived honestly with Democrats and Trump's perceived honesty with Republicans and vice versa, they both scored well within their parties, abysmally outside, but the important part was why people thought they were honest, within their party: Democrats found Clinton honest because they thought she was factually accurate when she made statements, while Republicans thought Trump was honest because they thought he was saying what he really thought, with no regard to whether or not it was "politically correct," or how it might be perceived, even in situations where he was factually wrong. Clinton was accurate; Trump was sincere. Cruz was neither.

So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a lot less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.

Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.

Ted Cruz was a Harvard-educated lawyer who looked like Eddie Munster and was too smooth by half. He may have been elected in the Tea Party wave, but he was the most "establishment" anti-establishment candidate I've ever seen. Trump was a billionare real estate manager from some prestigious school or other so you'd think you could make the same accusation, except I think the "too smooth by half" part of it is the critical part - Cruz seemed like the sort of slimy, sleazeball lawyer who'd say whatever it took to get his way. Trump managed to turn his lack of filter to his advantage - if you remember some of the polling back in the election about Hillary's perceived honestly with Democrats and Trump's perceived honesty with Republicans and vice versa, they both scored well within their parties, abysmally outside, but the important part was why people thought they were honest, within their party: Democrats found Clinton honest because they thought she was factually accurate when she made statements, while Republicans thought Trump was honest because they thought he was saying what he really thought, with no regard to whether or not it was "politically correct," or how it might be perceived, even in situations where he was factually wrong. Clinton was accurate; Trump was sincere. Cruz was neither.

So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a lot less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.

Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.

Click to expand...

I mean, I think we agree, except for that one tiny detail of how much Trump's supporters will make the association of Trump's tax plan with Trump. No politicians ever really seem to ever take much blame from their own support bases once they reach the level Trump has reached.

So, I think that's where Trump is playing with fire; after running a campaign to help the "little guy" and the "forgotten blue collar workers," if he then goes and 1) tries to take away their health care access (which went over poorly even with Trump voters), and 2) then tries to pass a tax bill that'll see a lot of middle class families pay more taxes, but large corporations and millionaires pay a lot less, he's going to suddenly expose himself as just a coarser, more foul-mouthed, less vampire-looking version of Ted Cruz.

Note that I don't think he'll back down, either. I just think he'll irreparably damage the small base he has left.

Click to expand...

I could see this happening, but I could also see his base sticking with him come Hell or high water (they often don't appear to make the most rational choice). I suppose we will have to wait this one out.

Hopefully we'll never get to the point when it'll be important anyway.

Click to expand...

I mean, considering he's pitching his tax plan as a way to make large corporations competitive internationally rather than as a way to help families, I think we ARE there, and it's a matter of watching what happens next.

"Sorry Puerto Rico, but you're throwing our budget out of whack. I mean we had Katrina, where many many thousands of people died and you had what, 16 so far?"

This man has negative tact, less than zero. Tact deficit.

Click to expand...

The most charitable interpretation I can come up with was this was an amazingly ham-fisted attempt to distance himself from criticism that Maria was becoming his Katrina.

There's this mindset that Trump is an evil genius 11th dimensional chess grandmaster distracting you with one hand while asking you to pay no mind to the man behind the curtain. I'm increasingly believing that that's bullshit, and he's just an idiot, and a callous asshole.

I do think some of the things he does are intended to distract. But he is also a callous, idiotic asshole who is so far removed from the real world that he has no clue as to how to go about interacting with it. And probably doesn't care.

I do think some of the things he does are intended to distract. But he is also a callous, idiotic asshole who is so far removed from the real world that he has no clue as to how to go about interacting with it. And probably doesn't care.

Click to expand...

I don't. Where you see a calculated attempt to distract, I see an almost total lack of impulse control when it comes to handling criticism, especially from women and minorities.

I don't disagree with you about his lack of impulse control, and I agree that a lot of what he posts is simply that.

But some things, like the Obamacare repeal failing while Trump is posting shit about NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem, are questionable. His base is busy supporting him about the national anthem and have forgotten all about the Obamacare repeal (which they probably don't actually want to happen, anyway, when they realize that means they won't have insurance).

Maybe that was just anger at the players and lack of impulse control, but the timing is suspicious.

I don't disagree with you about his lack of impulse control, and I agree that a lot of what he posts is simply that.

But some things, like the Obamacare repeal failing while Trump is posting shit about NFL players refusing to stand for the national anthem, are questionable. His base is busy supporting him about the national anthem and have forgotten all about the Obamacare repeal (which they probably don't actually want to happen, anyway, when they realize that means they won't have insurance).

Maybe that was just anger at the players and lack of impulse control, but the timing is suspicious.

Click to expand...

The two are sort of self-contradictory, though, no?

Like, either he's doing this all very intentionally, as part of a calculated plan... Or, it's entirely unintentional, not calculated at all, and he can't help himself. It may have the effect of distracting his base from something else, but it's hard to ascribe intentionality to it.

Like, either he's doing this all very intentionally, as part of a calculated plan... Or, it's entirely unintentional, not calculated at all, and he can't help himself. It may have the effect of distracting his base from something else, but it's hard to ascribe intentionality to it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that a lack of self control necessarily precludes the ability to misdirect and/or distract when it is convenient to do so, but rather that it indicates that not all (or even a majority) of his comments are planned out ahead of time; many are off the cuff comments that a "normal" person would keep to himself should such a thought even pop into his head, whereas Trump's lack of an internal filter and lack self control causes him to put these thoughts out there for god and country to read.

I wouldn't say that a lack of self control necessarily precludes the ability to misdirect and/or distract when it is convenient to do so, but rather that it indicates that not all (or even a majority) of his comments are planned out ahead of time; many are off the cuff comments that a "normal" person would keep to himself should such a thought even pop into his head, whereas Trump's lack of an internal filter and lack self control causes him to put these thoughts out there for god and country to read.

Click to expand...

I would - I think it's pretty simple, if it's something he has no control over, then clearly it's not something he's doing on purpose to misdirect.

We - both us and the media - are giving Trump too much credit when we accuse him of intentionally misdirecting with his outbursts. Trump is NOT an intelligent, savvy man. Have you actually read his full comments in Puerto Rico, shortly before the paper towel throwing incident? He claims that most people have never heard of a Category 5 hurricane, goes off on a tangent bragging about the F-35, how you "literally can't see it," and brags about how he negotiated down the price. Tillerson was right; he's a fucking moron.

I mean, if he's really a man with no impulse control when a minority woman insults him, that makes him awfully easy to manipulate, no? That's a risk, for the GOP and for America.

Click to expand...

I mean, if anyone thought he had one iota of impulse control, even during the election, then ... IDK, you're looking at a guy who, during televised speeches, made fun of people with handicaps and encouraged his supporters to use physical violence against others by paying their resultant legal expenses. If you think that the bar is still set pretty high after a major presidential candidate does things such as that, then I think you're way too optimistic.

Trump is easily manipulated. He's the PotUSA, but he's also still a spray-tanned reality-TV-show-starring shady-business-owning born-a-millionaire bratty spoiled sleazy loud-mouthed demagogue. It's been nearly a year since he won the election, and I honestly still have no idea how to even begin parsing the fact that he is the leader of the free world. I know folks will compare Obama's blunder of not knowing how many damned states there are in the USA, but there is no comparison between an exhausted usually-well-spoken even-keeled dude mis-speaking, and Trump, dealing with a terrible disaster in Puerto Rico, knowing well in advance that's the topic, and not knowing that Puerto Rico is part of the USA.

If I worked for Pepsi-co, would I approach Trump to try to ban Mexican Coke from the US market? No - I'd be too afraid of simply being on his radar, I think. I can't really think of any example where knowing how hot-headed and willfully fact-ignorant he is could be played to my advantage. This is, after all, the one of, what? -two guys with the power to call in a nuclear missile strike on my house. I don't get warm fuzzy feelings about Putin, but if I had to trust one of those two with my life, I certainly wouldn't put Trump at the top of that short list.

I would - I think it's pretty simple, if it's something he has no control over, then clearly it's not something he's doing on purpose to misdirect.

We - both us and the media - are giving Trump too much credit when we accuse him of intentionally misdirecting with his outbursts. Trump is NOT an intelligent, savvy man. Have you actually read his full comments in Puerto Rico, shortly before the paper towel throwing incident? He claims that most people have never heard of a Category 5 hurricane, goes off on a tangent bragging about the F-35, how you "literally can't see it," and brags about how he negotiated down the price. Tillerson was right; he's a fucking moron.

Click to expand...

I'm not talking long term here; Trump isn't mentally or emotionally capable of playing a long game.

What I'm talking about is a situation like Trump realizing that something negative is happening (the Russia investigation, his mishandling of the several recent natural disasters, the GOP failing to pass legislature he campaigned on, etc.) and then thinking "shit, this doesn't make me look good and claiming 'fake news' probably won't cut it this time" before proceeding to post tweets about something that will stir the pot (NFL players not standing for the national anthem, insulting some public figure he has a beef with, etc.).

That behavior is both intended to shift the focus away from the negative event (and and any repercussions that would affect Trump) and impulsive. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

I'm not talking long term here; Trump isn't mentally or emotionally capable of playing a long game.

What I'm talking about is a situation like Trump realizing that something negative is happening (the Russia investigation, his mishandling of the several recent natural disasters, the GOP failing to pass legislature he campaigned on, etc.) and then thinking "shit, this doesn't make me look good and claiming 'fake news' probably won't cut it this time" before proceeding to post tweets about something that will stir the pot (NFL players not standing for the national anthem, insulting some public figure he has a beef with, etc.).

That behavior is both intended to shift the focus away from the negative event (and and any repercussions that would affect Trump) and impulsive. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

Click to expand...

I don't even necessarily buy that, though, is the thing. There are times where he may have the effect of doing that, and if you want to make the argument that its some sort of short term calculation the NFL kneeling thing works well because it's a divisive issue that plays well with not just his base but the broader GOP, but if you look at how it came about, initially it was just a couple off-the-cuff comments in a speech in a rally for Strange in the closing days of the Alabama runoff, and when the crowd went wild, he then doubled down on twitter the next day (which his base loved), and in the process uninvited the Golden State Warriors from the White House, which was met with much more muted of a reaction. It seems like this was more of a response to a stimulus than a calculated plan ("hey! they like this! let's do more of it!") and even then, picking a fight with Steven Curry and LeBron James was hardly a winning strategy.

And then there are twitter fights he's picked where it's really tough to see how it advantages him - whereas there was at least some upside with the NFL, picking a fight with the mayor of San Juan only really succeeded in calling attention to how abysmally bad the USA's response has been the the devastation caused by Maria in Puerto Rico. At present, the public's approval of Trump's response to Maria is actually significantly worse than Bush's was to Katrina in New Orleans. Doubling down on this one and criticizing her was a pure self-inflicted wound.

tl;dr - they ARE mutually exclusive, because if you think he's trying to shift focus away from a negative event, 1) that implies it's calculated, not impulsive, and 2) he historically hasn't done such a good job of "choosing" subjects to pick fights with, and even the times when he has (the NFL), doing things like then impulsively uninviting the Warriors was something that even his base thought was dumb.